Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42401662›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Sound is essential for observers to accurately assess unsuccessful conversations.

Raluca Nicoras, Rosa-Linde Fischer, Lauren V Hadley, Graham Naylor, Karolina Smeds

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Raluca NicorasHearing Sciences - Scottish Section, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, New Lister Building Level 3, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 10-16 Alexandra Parade, Glasgow, G31 2ER, UK. raluca.nicoras@nottingham.ac.uk.
Rosa-Linde FischerORCA Labs, WS Audiology, Erlangen, Germany.
Lauren V HadleyHearing Sciences - Scottish Section, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, New Lister Building Level 3, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 10-16 Alexandra Parade, Glasgow, G31 2ER, UK.
Graham NaylorHearing Sciences - Scottish Section, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, New Lister Building Level 3, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 10-16 Alexandra Parade, Glasgow, G31 2ER, UK.
Karolina SmedsHearing Sciences - Scottish Section, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, New Lister Building Level 3, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 10-16 Alexandra Parade, Glasgow, G31 2ER, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S003620/1UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship UKRI1059
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Perceiving success in group conversations is central to social life, yet little is known about the extent to which the conversation success perceived by conversational partners aligns with that perceived by third-party observers. This study explores how third-party observers perceive conversation success across three sensory conditions (auditory-visual (AV), visual-only (V), and auditory-only (A)) to identify cues of which sensory domain signal perception of success. In two online experiments, older adults (57.1 years (SD = 6.1), N = 160 per experiment) watched and/or heard audio of 2-minute excerpts of previously recorded four-person conversations. Just as the original interlocutors had done themselves, observers provided continuous judgements of conversation success using a slider and an overall success rating after the conversation. Observers judged conversations in AV and V conditions (Experiment 1) and AV and A conditions (Experiment 2). Across both experiments, observers' overall ratings generally aligned with interlocutors' overall success ratings, showing that success can be assessed without active participation. However, for less successful conversations, observers overestimated success when deprived of auditory information (V condition) but not when deprived of visual information (A condition). These findings suggest that auditory cues provide the most critical information for assessing conversation failure, while visual cues alone may mislead observers.

Indexed as

Auditory-visual cuesConversation successGroup conversationsThird-party observers

Identifiers

PMID42401662
PMCPMC13634917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.